Qbasicnews.com

lol!!! :-P

I know I have almost no business posting here seeing as I stopped posting in the progging forums but I gotta get this off my chest. AK-47s are not iilegal to own. If you have a semiauto version you can own one. You can also get a full auto license but you basically have to sign your soul to the feds. Also If guns were made iilegal to own in the US guess what would happen. The criminals would be the only civies to have firearms and the crime rate would go sky high. I would prefer that every law abiding non felon citizen had a firearm, that way the criminals would think:Well if I try to rob Mr. X's house I am probably gonna get shot. If I live I am probably gonna get caught and if I get caught then I am probably going to jail. You see if every law abiding citizen had a firearm even a puny .38 special the crime rate would go down.


And if you don't like what I just said.....
...
...
...
Shoot me

Sorry I just had to do it.

*bang* - done.

To be frank, Bill, vigilante gun owners packing heat is not exactly what keeps crime off the street. It has a lot more to do with police enforcement, the social atmosphere and the situation at hand. Gun ownership in New York is staggering, but look at the crime rate there.

But the topic at hand is whether police should have jurisdiction to take action under fire. Well, of course the answer's yes. And last I checked, at least in Florida, if a police officer is in a life threatening situation, he has every legal right to open fire. Had the officer in question not called for back up and simply fired on the subject, he would not be charged with any crime, or inditement.

Wow, bill, I thought that those far west stories ended in the XIX century. I don't have a gun, and people don't come to my house to rob just because of that. Robbers don't have guns, either.

Anyhow, it is useless to talk to you about how terrible guns are. I'll give up. Hail John Waine.

It was a smegging example and guns themselves aren't terrible it is just some of the people behind them.

Agreed, people behind them is who shoot them, but if they didn't existed, bad people would have nothing to shoot.

Still, getting rid of guns to the public would keep many small time criminals from shooting people. Only the big drug lords that have connections to these kinds of things would have them, and even then, if they're caught, that's another charge against them

not ture, reminds me of a seminar where the crime rate was compared of when Australia had guns, and when they were taken away... as soon as guns were taken away, all crime rates shot sky high... armed robery's went up %300 (a true fact, not one of these stupid things Oracle is coming up with) Why, because they have no reason to worry... in England, it's like why would a criminal give a "care" if the police don't even cary guns! lol, what a way to live... I'm really scared of yalls police force.

Nathan, you are right... if they could truely "all" be taken away, they would have nothing to shoot... ok, back to crossbows... oh wait that taken away to??? :-o ok, bow and arrow! oh, got rid of those... back to swords, oh illegal... Kitchen knives!!!! illegal, the whole world starves cause there is nothing to cut meat with... the end. (My little vision of what's to come) oh, Bill glad to see someone else here backing me up. And yes, I know Ak's are legal to own... California is real strict about it though. And yep, to get an automatic license here is to sell your soul to the feds, allowing them to come into your home whenever they want search through your stuff for no good reason... and that's just one thing you sign off to. But I don't see much of a reason for the average citizen to be able to buy a S.quad A.utomatic W.eapon , :-) other than the cool idea that you can go blow up about 20 milk jugs in the back yard in under 3 seconds.

Quote:not ture, reminds me of a seminar where the crime rate was compared of when Australia had guns, and when they were taken away... as soon as guns were taken away, all crime rates shot sky high... armed robery's went up %300 (a true fact, not one of these stupid things Oracle is coming up with) Why, because they have no reason to worry... in England, it's like why would a criminal give a "care" if the police don't even cary guns! lol, what a way to live... I'm really scared of yalls police force.

Once you get to a situation where everybody has guns, and everybody is used to having guns, just suddenly banning them aint gonna work. In australia for example - overnight, suddenly they're illegal - but what has really changed? The mentality is still there. Only now a perp is less likely to get shot by a law-abiding citizen who has handed his piece in - viva la difference. Here in UK, we've never had this gun mentality - so it's not like we're suddenly 'missing' something. An american friend of mine once pointed out guns are to americans what tea is to the english. And if they tried to ban tea tomorrow, would it work? (No.. )

As for the police, of course we have armed response units who will surround your house seconds if you're doing something criminal. But coppers walking the streets don't carry guns - and why would they need to? Nobody else has a gun, so who's gonna shoot them? Is it better to live under the same threat-based principle that was behind the nuclear arms race (they've got nukes so we must build nukes too to be 'safe').. or would it be better if nobody had nukes at all?